LAUC-SC Executive Board Minutes 3-5-09

LAUC-Santa Cruz Executive Council Meeting Minutes

March 5, 2009

Present: Frank Gravier (Chair), Sarah Troy (Vice Chair), Deborah Murphy (CAPA Chair), Ken Lyons (General Committee Chair), Nicole Lawson (Secretary), and members Kerry Scott, Cynthia Jahns, Karen Mokrzycki and Annette Marines.

1. Announcements: None

2. Report from the Campus Welfare Committee : Member Scott reported on the February CWC meeting during which representatives from each campus department give updates.




 

  • TAPS: Will be receiving $125K in stimulus money to replace their paratransit vans. Several TAPS vehicles have been broken into recently. TAPS will be working within existing security measures to ensure that this is prevented in the future. They are also evaluating budgets options including changes to the pricing for parking fees and charging for the bike shuttle. These changes would occur over a multi-year span. TAPS will be sending out a survey to the campus about their ridership habits. A question will also be included about telecommuting.
  • Childcare Advisory Committee: They recently renewed an old license in order to expand the programs offered. The CAC would like to collect data on the percentage of students, faculty and staff who use their services. In addition they are discussing changing the structure of the committee in order to include more campus administrators who can lend their support to committee's initiatives.
  • The CWC has is working on a mini-grant proposal focused on day-of-service grants for the broader campus community specifically looking at on-campus service.
  • The campuswide discussion of telecommuting and flextime continues. The CWC will be collecting and reviewing data on telecommuting, but will focus on the issue of flexible scheduling in the meantime.
  • Scott reminded the Council that telecommuting is included in the Librarian MOU.
  • Lyons will send a reminder to membership about scheduling and telecommuting options included in the MOU.

3. Subscription to Library Literature: Troy received 9 votes in favor of keeping this database from the membership. Though the current subscription is paid through the end of August, it is unclear what the LAUC budget will be for the next fiscal year given the current budget climate. The Council is unsure of the exact subscription cost. Scott agreed to discuss subscription and cost options at the CMT meeting. Gravier will e-mail Statewide Chair Dunlap about statewide support for the subscription and what other campuses are doing. If there is any surplus for the current budget year, members at the meeting suggested LAUC purchase a new laptop, web cameras for video conferencing, or mini voice recorders for meetings.

4. Counter-Offer Task Force: Lyons forwarded the charge to the Council and has not received any questions or concerns. The task force will focus solely on the process by which a counter-offer will be extended. Gravier and Lyons will set a meeting time to convene the task force.

5. Goals and Objectives Process: AUL McGirr has forwarded a document formalizing the goal setting and updates to statements of responsibility to the membership. The Council discussed its content and implications:





 

  • Troy expressed concern that Admin has been combining the statement of responsibilities with goals and objectives.
  • Lyons highlighted that the latest document makes a clear distinction between the responsibilities and goals and objectives. It also outlines a process for updating the statement of responsibilities at the time of each review.
  • Marines pointed out that the creation of this process was spurred by the RRC report and was intended to facilitate regular communication between supervisors/supervisees.
  • Scott expressed concern that the updating of the statement of responsibilities and the creation of goals and objectives remain two separate and very distinct processes.
  • Murphy advocated that reintroduce its original request to have the process focus solely on an informal process by which supervisors and supervisees work together to create goals and objectives.
  • Both Scott and Marines reinforced that the process should foster transparency and an open communication plan.
  • Gravier and Murphy will work on questions and clarifications about both statements of responsibilties and goals and objectives to take to the upcoming meeting with Admin. Gravier also proposed a future brown bag event to explain the final process to the membership.

6. Report on Meeting with Library Admin:

  • Gravier and Troy will be meeting with Admin on Thursday, March 12th to review items on the ongoing tasks list.
  • Member Jahns mentioned that no exit interview was conducted with the librarian who most recently left for another position, Danielle Kane. She suggested that LAUC discuss with Admin a process for making sure that such an interview occurs each time a librarian leaves.

7. Update on the Ongoing Tasks List: Gravier and Lawson met to reorganize the list. The latest changes are reflected on the LAUC website. There will likely be additional changes after the meeting with Admin.

8. Chair's Report: None

9. Vice Chair's Report:

"I think it was Santa Cruz that raised the issue that professional development funds were being reclaimed if unspent at the end of each fiscal year and I said that at Berkeley they just roll over. I talked with a friend in the Library Business Office here, who first of all told me that each campus is different and organizes its business in unique ways. He then told me that at Berkeley whether money rolls over or not has nothing to do with the fund code itself. It has to do with the source of the money and the purpose of the money. LAUC money does not come from the Library or the campus (though it is filtered through both); so, it is not touched by the business office at the end of the year, but just rolls over to the next year for LAUC use. Other development money given out by the Library reverts to the Library if not spent by individuals by the end of the year. It is not given back to the campus, because it is Library money and stays in the library.

A librarian friend also pointed out (in relation to a different issue)

This is what I read, but I'm not sure it means what I thought it meant. How do you interpret this?

Article 3, Paragraph F of our MOU: "Any encumbered balances in the campus funds or the University-wide research fund will be carried over into the next fiscal year. For the purpose of this Article encumbered funds are funds for which a commitment has been made to an individual."

Whatever it means exactly, it does indicate that it is possible for professional development money to roll over at least to another year. The MOU is at
http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relation... "

I have read this information closely about 3 times now, and based on what I've read in the R&PD report, I am not certain that UCB is actually doing anything significantly different from what we do here at UCSC. My understanding (PLEASE DO CORRECT ME IF THIS IS INACCURATE) is that the professional development money that we receive as mandated by our contract could theoretically be rolled over, while the supplemental funds that Ginny allocates each year would go back into the library's coffer. Since we generally redistribute unspent funds at the end of the year, there wouldn't necessarily be any remaining funds to roll-over into the next fiscal year.

  • R&PD research & mini-grant proposals:

    from Karen Mokrzycki: The Statewide LAUC RPD Committee met on Monday February 3rd in Berkeley and reviewed the Research Proposals and mini-grant and presentation grant proposals. The committee is working on the letters to the applicants per the regular process and calendar. It was agreed that there would be enough funding left to send a second call for mini-grant and presentation grants. Chair Lucia Diamond requested that for this second call the mini-grant applications go directly to the campus representative to the statewide committee. The second call is slightly revised to better clarify the research
    requirement.

    With the time remaining, the Committee began discussing ways to improve the LAUC Research grant process and how to encourage more applications. This discussion will continue after the Research Grant portion of the committee's business is completed. The Committee will also be holding further discussions on the mini-grants and presentation
    grants and may develop recommendations for changes.

  • From the Ongoing Tasks List:
  • We are currently investigating how it is that other campuses (UCB and UCI) are able to roll-over unused R&PD allocations. Berkeley has responded to our inquiry to say:

10. CAPA Chair's Report: None

11. General Committee Chair's Report: Lyons asked for feedback from the Council on the speakers he outlined at the February meeting. The consensus was that Joyce Irby should be selected to give a workshop on time management. Marines suggested that we ask Irby to focus on scheduling and time management in academic setting/calendar.

12. Secretary's Report: None

Minutes by Lawson